The original cables are of good quality. The interface
connector-cable is always sensitive on this small diameter cables.
RG223 is much heavier, so can withstand a lot more mechanical
stress, but isn't working well above some GHz and put more stress
to the connectors of the TinySA.
I prefer this tiny cables with PTFE insulation, because this can
easily repaired by soldering the sleeve to the connector.
This is OK up to round about 18GHz, then all parts of the cables
need to have a much higher quality to work without to much
reflections and damping.
So if you care about the original cables you can use them fora
long time. I own also some NanoVNAs, same to that.
Please keep in mind that a high quality SMA cable form Gore or
Suhner can cost 10 times the price of a Ultra, a 2.92mm cable with
cal data with 30cm length 100 times the price of a Ultra.
So for the budget this cables are really nice. To me the material
looks the same, the Ultra cables are a little longer.
All the Best,
Isidro
Am 20.01.2023 um 22:27 schrieb spiff72:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Question for those who own both a TinySA and the
Ultra version:
Are the cables physically different between the two
models?? Are the Ultra cables any different in length or
diameter compared to the original TinySA?
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:09
AM John Cunliffe W7ZQ <
n2nep@...>
wrote:
The
delivered cables failed after about 1 week. The connector /
cable interface at the shield came lose. I have since replaced
them on both units with commercial RG223 cables of about the
same length.
